To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug.

Except I'm not. At all. Not even a little bit.

Reading comprehension is a good thing people.

I'm completely comprehending what you've written. What I'm not comprehending is why you're making such an argument in the first place.

Quote:

Does PFF have a set of controls and/or statistics that they can use for all the players they rated? Did they apply these consistantly to all the players they rated? You could argue flawed methodology, but if the answer to those 2 questions is yes, then you can't argue with their rankings.

Again, nobody is interested in arguing that PFF's results were wrong according to their method. And that's exactly where you lost me.

PFF baked their pie and put it on the table. We can eat it if we want to, then critique the end product. Nobody is arguing that PFF did not create a pie according to their recipe. We're saying the pie tastes funny.

So, since you comprehended what I wrote, at what point was it that I ignored there methodology? I even made a point to mention it...multiple times...

PFF applied their formula to everyone the same. They have numbers and stuff to back it up (such as they are...). People are here crying and screaming about how that "doesn't seem right". Every time someone rates an Eagles player well the same thing happens. "They're not credible". "He's overrated". So on and so forth. Let it go. According to the metrics they use, Mathis is whatever he was rated (I haven't even looked because I don't care). By arguing that that is not so, you are arguing that they deviated from their methodology.

Did I say you ignored their methodology? You've lost me again completely.

Again, nobody is interested in arguing that they deviated from their methodology. I can't for the life of me figure out where you've gotten that idea from.

PFF isn't some child at the beach building a sand castle, where criticizing the end product would be pretty silly.

PFF creates their rankings to create discussion. You can agree, disagree, or question their methods. People have routinely found problems with their conclusions. And thus, criticizing their method is merited, appropriate, and pretty standard.

According to some people, long arms is the number one indicator for whether a player will have a good career. When people question that false logic, it's not because there is a deviation from the methodology. It's because it's debatable.

Any ranking is debatable. PFF is no different. I think the claim that we have the #2 offensive player in the NFL on our terrible offensive line is hilariously debatable._________________

So, since you comprehended what I wrote, at what point was it that I ignored there methodology? I even made a point to mention it...multiple times...

PFF applied their formula to everyone the same. They have numbers and stuff to back it up (such as they are...). People are here crying and screaming about how that "doesn't seem right". Every time someone rates an Eagles player well the same thing happens. "They're not credible". "He's overrated". So on and so forth. Let it go. According to the metrics they use, Mathis is whatever he was rated (I haven't even looked because I don't care). By arguing that that is not so, you are arguing that they deviated from their methodology.

I haven't seen a single person on here argue that the deviated from their methodology. The reason people disagree with this is because they don't agree with the methodology that PFF used to rank its prospects.

If a player like Mathis is rated the second best offensive player in the NFL, there clearly is some issue with their methodology._________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug.

Except I'm not. At all. Not even a little bit.

Reading comprehension is a good thing people.

I'm completely comprehending what you've written. What I'm not comprehending is why you're making such an argument in the first place.

Quote:

Does PFF have a set of controls and/or statistics that they can use for all the players they rated? Did they apply these consistantly to all the players they rated? You could argue flawed methodology, but if the answer to those 2 questions is yes, then you can't argue with their rankings.

Again, nobody is interested in arguing that PFF's results were wrong according to their method. And that's exactly where you lost me.

PFF baked their pie and put it on the table. We can eat it if we want to, then critique the end product. Nobody is arguing that PFF did not create a pie according to their recipe. We're saying the pie tastes funny.

So, since you comprehended what I wrote, at what point was it that I ignored there methodology? I even made a point to mention it...multiple times...

PFF applied their formula to everyone the same. They have numbers and stuff to back it up (such as they are...). People are here crying and screaming about how that "doesn't seem right". Every time someone rates an Eagles player well the same thing happens. "They're not credible". "He's overrated". So on and so forth. Let it go. According to the metrics they use, Mathis is whatever he was rated (I haven't even looked because I don't care). By arguing that that is not so, you are arguing that they deviated from their methodology.

Did I say you ignored their methodology? You've lost me again completely.
It's flipping bolded in the quote tree above. How could that possibly lose you?
Again, nobody is interested in arguing that they deviated from their methodology. I can't for the life of me figure out where you've gotten that idea from.
That's exactly what they are arguing, though. Exactly. Based on their methodology, Mathis is whatever they have him ranked as. To argue against him being there on their list can literally be nothing else. It's impossible.
PFF isn't some child at the beach building a sand castle, where criticizing the end product would be pretty silly.
Sure.
PFF creates their rankings to create discussion. You can agree, disagree, or question their methods. People have routinely found problems with their conclusions. And thus, criticizing their method is merited, appropriate, and pretty standard.
Sure.
According to some people, long arms is the number one indicator for whether a player will have a good career. When people question that false logic, it's not because there is a deviation from the methodology. It's because it's debatable.
Apples =/= oranges.
Any ranking is debatable. PFF is no different. I think the claim that we have the #2 offensive player in the NFL on our terrible offensive line is hilariously debatable.

There are really only 2 debates against a ranking of this nature, however. You disagree with the method (which some in this thread have done). Or you assume they deviated from their method (which some have also done, though not in so many words).

Right now I'll disagree with your method. Terrible offensive line =/= one of the players playing at a high level.

The bottom line is that you continue to miss my point and are dragging the conversation away from it.

So, since you comprehended what I wrote, at what point was it that I ignored there methodology? I even made a point to mention it...multiple times...

PFF applied their formula to everyone the same. They have numbers and stuff to back it up (such as they are...). People are here crying and screaming about how that "doesn't seem right". Every time someone rates an Eagles player well the same thing happens. "They're not credible". "He's overrated". So on and so forth. Let it go. According to the metrics they use, Mathis is whatever he was rated (I haven't even looked because I don't care). By arguing that that is not so, you are arguing that they deviated from their methodology.

I haven't seen a single person on here argue that the deviated from their methodology. The reason people disagree with this is because they don't agree with the methodology that PFF used to rank its prospects.
Great. Now go back and read many of the posts. Some people say they are not credible. Fine. Others cry "because they watched the games" or some other nonsense.
If a player like Mathis is rated the second best offensive player in the NFL, there clearly is some issue with their methodology.